Workers World, Vol. 4 No. 21
The ability of the revolutionary people of Cuba, of their government, and of their heroic leader, Premier Castro, to withstand the tremendous pressure and unparalleled provocations of U.S. imperialism, literally astonishes the world. But their inflexible determination to stand firm in the face of this most recent crisis is truly an incredible feat of world historic significance.
All the more necessary to examine the facets of the crisis which have deep meaning not only for Cuba, but for the rest of the world.
Did Khrushchev conduct himself in the Cuban crisis in the spirit of one socialist ally to another? Did Khrushchev act in the spirit of proletarian internationalism during the world crisis?
Whether the USSR should or should not have removed the strategic weapons from Cuba in the face of what appeared to be imminent armed attack may still be open to question. The question, however, can only be answered by history. Retreats in the course of the class struggle are unavoidable, and in a given instance, may be absolutely necessary.
It is entirely conceivable that under the given circumstances, it was the only alternative. At any rate, the agreement in and of itself cannot be a valid axis for a dispute in the international Communist movement, if what was involved was a purely military decision.
If, however, subsequent events reveal that it was based on political and diplomatic considerations, then indeed it would be impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Khrushchev-Kennedy accord has deep implications which far transcend the confines of Cuba.
But even if the retreat be regarded as necessary and correct, it cannot be overlooked that it has resulted in a sharpening of imperialist appetites, and has given a new impetus to further aggression. This can be seen in the new mood of the ruling class. The blatant arrogance of imperialism, the nauseating boastfulness, the unsurpassed bellicosity have all followed on the heels of the agreement.
But what disturbs wide sections of the working class throughout the world is not so much the political content of the Khrushchev-Kennedy accord, but the manner in which it was executed. The fact that Khrushchev conducted the negotiations unilaterally constitutes the most serious objection to the agreement.
There are those who say, in view of the magnitude of the crisis, it is unlikely that an adequate opportunity was afforded for consultation.
The Cuban crisis, however, did not arrive on the day that Kennedy delivered his infamous speech on TV which set off the crisis. It had long been in the making, and was openly discussed for weeks in the imperialist press and the world generally. It is inconceivable that measures for quick consultation on such an urgent issue could not be taken. In fact it would take an extraordinary amount of naiveté in the matter of international relations to believe that adequate measures for consultation could not have been planned in advance – in view, particularly, of the experience of the first invasion [the Bay of Pigs]. The one undeniable fact that emerges from the negotiations is that the Cuban government was not consulted before Khrushchev made his commitment.
The sure proof of this is the fact that Premier Castro was immediately obliged to announce his five points, which included a rejection of UN inspection, a point specifically mentioned in the Kennedy-Khrushchev exchange.
The intransigence with which Premier Fidel Castro opposed inspection as an infringement on the sovereignty and independence of Cuba is in itself a good measure of the serious divergence in views regarding the agreement. The apprehensions aroused by the manner and method with which Khrushchev conducted negotiations is not just a matter of form.
As this is being written, the blockade of Cuba is still on. Aerial surveillance of Cuban territory continues and this means the continued violation of Cuban air space. The arrogant insistence by Kennedy on inspection gives every indication that Cuba is as much in danger from U.S. imperialism as it ever was. There is only the bare promise of Kennedy, which is vague, qualified and burdened with conditions which are unacceptable to the Cuban government.
Indeed, if there is to be any guarantee against U.S. aggression at all, the conditions laid down by Premier Castro in his now famous five points are the only safeguards of Cuba as an independent nation, free to develop and advance its revolution.
The Khrushchev-Kennedy agreement must also be seen in the wider context of Khrushchev’s over-all foreign policy. Specific agreements between the USSR and the imperialist countries on such matters as nuclear testing, Berlin and other specific issues, cannot but meet with the approval of all progressive mankind.
But it is something else again when it comes to what is known as a “general accommodation” with the West. This comes up again and again at each new stage in the development of the relations between the USSR and the West.
It is no longer a secret that a good portion of international Communist opinion views with distrust and suspicion the motivation of Khrushchev and his collaborators in their dealings with the West.
It could not possibly have escaped the notice of the bourgeoisie that the leadership of the USSR has taken a neutralist position on the critical China-India border dispute. Even when Pravda finally took the side of the Chinese after the fighting broke out on a large scale, it still remained to be seen how far the Soviet leadership would actually support their class ally, the People’s Republic of China. The issue is not at all unrelated to the Cuban situation.
The Cuban debacle, arising out of the Khrushchev-Kennedy accord, throws everything into confusion. It raises serious doubts everywhere, among advanced and class-conscious workers, about the real orientation of the current Soviet leadership.
In the eyes of many, it cannot but appear to be an attempt to appease U.S. imperialism at the expense of others. This judgement may be premature. It is, however, extremely significant that the Peking People’s Daily in its November 5 issue characterizes the Cuban crisis as “a crisis carrying out an appeasement policy toward United States aggression and a crisis encouraging United States imperialism to pursue even more insatiably its policies of aggression and war.” The People’s Daily has all but dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s in an indictment of Khrushchev’s foreign policy.
It is too early to form a definitive evaluation of the ultimate significance of the accord. Whatever the immediate exigencies may be, the tide of history is against a resurgence of imperialist domination. Efforts at naked military aggression will only rekindle the revolutionary ferment of the mass of people under the yoke of monopoly capital.
It is the indomitable revolutionary will of the Cuban people, their solidarity and unity and their heroic leader Premier Fidel Castro, which has stayed the hand of the Pentagon war makers. With the help of the Latin American people, the support of the Asian-African people, the socialist countries, and progressive mankind in general, the Cuban revolution will remain invincible.
Last updated: 11 May 2026